Red tractor traceability.

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Now a thought has occurred to me. We currently are rt assured for cereals and beef. Therefore following the red tractor strapline that it’s traceable would it be reasonable to ask them to trace all the commodities I sell and make sure they are been sold to the consumer as red tractor assured?

And if not why not? Surely it must be in red tractors remit to ensure our goods that have been through there audit process keep the quality mark that we have paid for right through to the end user?

Could they be obtaining monies from us fraudulently by allowing our assured products to lose there status further down the food chain?
 
Last edited:

Farma Parma

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Northumberlandia
Now a thought has occurred to me. We currently are rt assured for cereals and beef. Therefore following the red tractor strapline that it’s traceable would it be reasonable to ask them to trace all the commodities I sell and make sure they are been sold to the consumer as red tractor assured?

And if not why not? Surely it must be in red tractors remit to ensure our goods that have been through there audit process keep the quality mark that we have paid for right through to the end user?

Could they be obtaining monies from us fraudulently by allowing our assured products to lose there status further down the food chain?
Good point that hmmmmmmm :unsure:
 

Flat 10

Member
Location
Fen Edge
Now a thought has occurred to me. We currently are rt assured for cereals and beef. Therefore following the red tractor strapline that it’s traceable would it be reasonable to ask them to trace all the commodities I sell and make sure they are been sold to the consumer as red tractor assured?

And if not why not? Surely it must be in red tractors remit to ensure our goods that have been through there audit process keep the quality mark that we have paid for right through to the end user?

Could they be obtaining monies from us fraudulently by allowing our assured products to lose there status further down the food chain?
Yes because the thieving robbing barstewards charge the retailer too…..
Add nothing, take a lot. The new RT slogan.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Yes they do thats why a lot of food stuffs not got there label on it & in a lot of cases its all in it
well considering we have paid the tractor to audit our products as assured and considering market options without there audit are limited, they should be ensuring that assurance that we have paid for makes it all the way to the consumer.

They should have robust procedures in places all along the food chain to protect our interests.

And to let our assured products be co-mingled with other non assured products therefore devaluing the quality mark that we have paid to be audited to achieve is a massive failure on there part and and they should be refunding us (for loss of that quality mark)

Charging the processor a fee to use the quality mark of our goods that have already been audited to have it on them I would also question the legality of!

So in summary

red tractor do the following:-

Charge us a fee to audit our products so we can sell with there assurance on it

but-

then do not ensure that our products (which we paid money to have a supposedly serious quality accreditation attached to them) make it it through the processing chain to the end user without losing that accreditation.

And also charge the processor for use of the quality mark that we as growers have already paid for to have attached to that product.

How can it even be legal for the above to happen?
 

Farma Parma

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Northumberlandia
well considering we have paid the tractor to audit our products as assured and considering market options without there audit are limited, they should be ensuring that assurance that we have paid for makes it all the way to the consumer.

They should have robust procedures in places all along the food chain to protect our interests.

And to let our assured products be co-mingled with other non assured products therefore devaluing the quality mark that we have paid to be audited to achieve is a massive failure on there part and and they should be refunding us (for loss of that quality mark)

Charging the processor a fee to use the quality mark of our goods that have already been audited to have it on them I would also question the legality of!

So in summary

red tractor do the following:-

Charge us a fee to audit our products so we can sell with there assurance on it

but-

then do not ensure that our products (which we paid money to have a supposedly serious quality accreditation attached to them) make it it through the processing chain to the end user without losing that accreditation.

And also charge the processor for use of the quality mark that we as growers have already paid for to have attached to that product.

How can it even be legal for the above to happen?
totally agree yet were pretty much powerless too do naff all about it
I cant sell any of my cereal without this Cartel
 

topground

Member
Location
North Somerset.
well considering we have paid the tractor to audit our products as assured and considering market options without there audit are limited, they should be ensuring that assurance that we have paid for makes it all the way to the consumer.

They should have robust procedures in places all along the food chain to protect our interests.

And to let our assured products be co-mingled with other non assured products therefore devaluing the quality mark that we have paid to be audited to achieve is a massive failure on there part and and they should be refunding us (for loss of that quality mark)

Charging the processor a fee to use the quality mark of our goods that have already been audited to have it on them I would also question the legality of!

So in summary

red tractor do the following:-

Charge us a fee to audit our products so we can sell with there assurance on it

but-

then do not ensure that our products (which we paid money to have a supposedly serious quality accreditation attached to them) make it it through the processing chain to the end user without losing that accreditation.

And also charge the processor for use of the quality mark that we as growers have already paid for to have attached to that product.

How can it even be legal for the above to happen?
Farm assurance was never about protecting the interests of the primary producer. Farm assurance is the means by which the supermarket cartel seek to provide a due diligence defence to proceedings under the Food Safety Act 1990 without having to bear the expense of monitoring their supply chain. The costs are born by the primary producer. The horsemeat scandal demonstrated what a nonsense these paper based schemes are, the price was right so the cartel didn’t care until they were caught.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Farm assurance was never about protecting the interests of the primary producer. Farm assurance is the means by which the supermarket cartel seek to provide a due diligence defence to proceedings under the Food Safety Act 1990 without having to bear the expense of monitoring their supply chain. The costs are born by the primary producer. The horsemeat scandal demonstrated what a nonsense these paper based schemes are, the price was right so the cartel didn’t care until they were caught.
I still question why the assurance provider that we pay allows our products to be sold as non assured further down the line.
 

woodster

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
East Northants
Used to sell all my wheat to Roquette Mills who were non assured. Dodson and Horrell just down the road from me wouldn't buy from non assured farms yet nearly every Roquette lorry that came to me did so backloading from delivering to Dodsons so apparently happy to deal with non assured mills????
 
Last edited:

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
Now a thought has occurred to me. We currently are rt assured for cereals and beef. Therefore following the red tractor strapline that it’s traceable would it be reasonable to ask them to trace all the commodities I sell and make sure they are been sold to the consumer as red tractor assured?

And if not why not? Surely it must be in red tractors remit to ensure our goods that have been through there audit process keep the quality mark that we have paid for right through to the end user?

Could they be obtaining monies from us fraudulently by allowing our assured products to lose there status further down the food chain?

Why? Surely it’s up to retailers whether they choose to promote RT as a premium product, nobody else?

-If you sell high health status livestock then they don’t necessarily retain that status when they go somewhere else.
-If you selling milling wheat or malting barley and it gets mixed with a lower spec product, it wouldn’t necessarily still be up to milling/malting spec.
-If I buy some organic cereals and feed them to my conventional stock, I can’t then sell those animals as organic.

A lot of these anti-RT threads are getting a bit daft, and surely diverting attention away from the original campaign?
 

tullah

Member
Location
Linconshire
well considering we have paid the tractor to audit our products as assured and considering market options without there audit are limited, they should be ensuring that assurance that we have paid for makes it all the way to the consumer.

They should have robust procedures in places all along the food chain to protect our interests.

And to let our assured products be co-mingled with other non assured products therefore devaluing the quality mark that we have paid to be audited to achieve is a massive failure on there part and and they should be refunding us (for loss of that quality mark)

Charging the processor a fee to use the quality mark of our goods that have already been audited to have it on them I would also question the legality of!

So in summary

red tractor do the following:-

Charge us a fee to audit our products so we can sell with there assurance on it

but-

then do not ensure that our products (which we paid money to have a supposedly serious quality accreditation attached to them) make it it through the processing chain to the end user without losing that accreditation.

And also charge the processor for use of the quality mark that we as growers have already paid for to have attached to that product.

How can it even be legal for the above to happen?
Third para says it all.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Why? Surely it’s up to retailers whether they choose to promote RT as a premium product, nobody else?

-If you sell high health status livestock then they don’t necessarily retain that status when they go somewhere else.
-If you selling milling wheat or malting barley and it gets mixed with a lower spec product, it wouldn’t necessarily still be up to milling/malting spec.
-If I buy some organic cereals and feed them to my conventional stock, I can’t then sell those animals as organic.

A lot of these anti-RT threads are getting a bit daft, and surely diverting attention away from the original campaign?
Your missing the point here!

we’re paying collectively an awful lot of money to a private company for assurance accreditation yet that very assurance stops as goods leaves the farm gate due to there shoddy practices and attitude.
 

New Fuel Supplier On The Way

  • 267
  • 2
Farmdeals is very pleased to announce that Exswift Limited will soon be joining our digital online platform. Exswift deliver all types of fuel to numerous locations around Essex and further a field. We will keep you updated as to when they go live. Farmdeals.ag powered by The Farming Forum & FutureFarm. #farming #workinghard #inittogether

Exswift lorry2.jpg
Top